Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Nanjeanne
Nanjeanne's Journal
Nanjeanne's Journal
March 25, 2016
<SNIP>
And so much more - read the whole article here: http://linkis.com/www.alternet.org/ele/bXrAM
And to read (if you missed it) Dolores Huerta's article, here's the link: https://medium.com/@DoloresHuerta/on-immigration-bernie-sanders-is-not-who-he-says-he-is-b79980adff6a#.bxzwi58ju
Rosario Dawson's Powerful Letter to Dolores Huerta: Setting the Facts Straight About Bernie Sanders
Brava Rosario Dawson for a wonderful open letter to Dolores Huerta after she penned back in February an article full of distortions. It's unfortunate it will not get one tenth of one percent the attention that Huerta's and Ferrera's misrepresentations of Sen. Sanders and his supporters did. But well worth the read.
Dear Dolores,
Before responding to your article on Bernie Sanders on Medium, I want to take a moment to acknowledge you and the work you have done for Latina/os, workers’ rights, unions, the feminist and LGBTQ movements, as well as against police brutality and pesticides. You stood up and gave a voice to the less fortunate and unrepresented parts of our communities, no matter what obstacles or challenges were thrown in your way. This is exactly why your article on Bernie Sanders came as such a surprise to me — that the same woman who has made it her life’s mission to speak the truth and shed light on corruption, lies, and false narratives created by the corporate elite and special interest groups, would now suddenly create a narrative that distorts facts and misguides American voters.
<SNIP>
My intention is not to tell anyone how to vote, but instead offer the facts and invite you to a healthy dialogue and debate.
So let me address your statements made:
1. People of good will can disagree about the H.R. 6094 (109th): Community Protection Act of 2006, which Bernie Sanders voted for. But:
— The words “indefinite detention” did not appear anywhere in the bill Bernie voted for. The bill only applied to people awaiting deportation (“under orders of removal”), often for having criminal records.
— The Congressional research office said people could be detained indefinitely under the bill if they were “specified dangerous aliens under orders of removal who cannot be removed.” Only about 4,000 people had been detained for more than six months as of 2009 — and the bill Bernie voted for would have required review of their detention status every six months.
— The bill split liberals in Congress, with some voting against it and many others (including Nancy Pelosi, Hillary supporter Sherrod Brown, and DNC chair and Hillary supporter Debbie Wasserman Schultz) voting for it, along with Bernie.
2. About the 2007 bill you criticized Bernie for voting against and have made your main argument:
He supported the DREAM ACT, but the entire bill had too many sections that would have been detrimental to American workers, immigration reform, immigrants and their families, so he ultimately decided to keep fighting for a better bill. A couple of the more contentious points were:
— It stepped-up border security, adding 20,000 more Border Patrol agents and 370 miles of additional fencing (you might call that “Trump wall” building) along the U.S.-Mexico border.
— It removed four of the five family-based categories under which an immigrant could apply for permanent residency. All that was left was the preference for spouses and children of U.S. citizens (which strikes me as a form of privilege).
— It expanded the horribly abusive guest worker program that has left some people in what the Southern Poverty Law Center calls “close to slavery“ in its report on the subject. (There are other horror stories, too.)
— The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), a federation of our country’s largest trade unions, both opposed the bill. LULAC’s Executive Director said the group “cannot support a bill that will separate families and lead to the exploitation of immigrant workers while resulting in widespread undocumented immigration in the future.”
— The AFL-CIO compared the exploitative nature of the guest worker provision to a “modern-day Bracero Program,” referring to the program launched during the Second World War to meet labor demands in the United States — one which led to the forced deportation of millions of Mexicans, including a few U.S. citizens, from the United States under Operation Wetback beginning in 1954. (Article by Hector Luis Alamo here.)
So let me address your statements made:
1. People of good will can disagree about the H.R. 6094 (109th): Community Protection Act of 2006, which Bernie Sanders voted for. But:
— The words “indefinite detention” did not appear anywhere in the bill Bernie voted for. The bill only applied to people awaiting deportation (“under orders of removal”), often for having criminal records.
— The Congressional research office said people could be detained indefinitely under the bill if they were “specified dangerous aliens under orders of removal who cannot be removed.” Only about 4,000 people had been detained for more than six months as of 2009 — and the bill Bernie voted for would have required review of their detention status every six months.
— The bill split liberals in Congress, with some voting against it and many others (including Nancy Pelosi, Hillary supporter Sherrod Brown, and DNC chair and Hillary supporter Debbie Wasserman Schultz) voting for it, along with Bernie.
2. About the 2007 bill you criticized Bernie for voting against and have made your main argument:
He supported the DREAM ACT, but the entire bill had too many sections that would have been detrimental to American workers, immigration reform, immigrants and their families, so he ultimately decided to keep fighting for a better bill. A couple of the more contentious points were:
— It stepped-up border security, adding 20,000 more Border Patrol agents and 370 miles of additional fencing (you might call that “Trump wall” building) along the U.S.-Mexico border.
— It removed four of the five family-based categories under which an immigrant could apply for permanent residency. All that was left was the preference for spouses and children of U.S. citizens (which strikes me as a form of privilege).
— It expanded the horribly abusive guest worker program that has left some people in what the Southern Poverty Law Center calls “close to slavery“ in its report on the subject. (There are other horror stories, too.)
— The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), a federation of our country’s largest trade unions, both opposed the bill. LULAC’s Executive Director said the group “cannot support a bill that will separate families and lead to the exploitation of immigrant workers while resulting in widespread undocumented immigration in the future.”
— The AFL-CIO compared the exploitative nature of the guest worker provision to a “modern-day Bracero Program,” referring to the program launched during the Second World War to meet labor demands in the United States — one which led to the forced deportation of millions of Mexicans, including a few U.S. citizens, from the United States under Operation Wetback beginning in 1954. (Article by Hector Luis Alamo here.)
And so much more - read the whole article here: http://linkis.com/www.alternet.org/ele/bXrAM
And to read (if you missed it) Dolores Huerta's article, here's the link: https://medium.com/@DoloresHuerta/on-immigration-bernie-sanders-is-not-who-he-says-he-is-b79980adff6a#.bxzwi58ju
March 24, 2016
SNIP
http://blog.4president.org/2016/2016/03/international-longshore-and-warehouse-union-endorses-bernie-sanders-for-president.html
The International Longshoremen and Warehouse Union Endorses Sanders
International Longshore and Warehouse Union Endorses Bernie Sanders for President
SPOKANE, Wash. – Bernie Sanders on Thursday welcomed the endorsement of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, which represents approximately 50,000 women and men who work in California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska and Hawaii.
SPOKANE, Wash. – Bernie Sanders on Thursday welcomed the endorsement of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, which represents approximately 50,000 women and men who work in California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska and Hawaii.
SNIP
“Bernie Sanders is the best candidate for America’s working families,” said ILWU International President Robert McEllrath. “Bernie is best on the issues that matter most to American workers: better trade agreements, support for unions, fair wages, tuition for students at public colleges, Medicare for all, fighting a corrupt campaign finance system and confronting the power of Wall Street that’s making life harder for most Americans.”
http://blog.4president.org/2016/2016/03/international-longshore-and-warehouse-union-endorses-bernie-sanders-for-president.html
March 18, 2016
Salt Lake City Utah Rally with Sanders. Then Tucson and then Phoenix!
Crowds gathering in Utah
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
Doors are scheduled to open at 12:30 pm Mountain Time
He then heads to Tucson - Doors open at 4:30 p.m. A Future to Believe In Tucson Rally, Tucson Convention Center, 260 S. Church Ave, Tucson
Phoenix tomorrow.
March 15, 2016
SNIP
Read the whole fascinating article:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-new-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders-20160315?page=2
Matt Taibbi's piece: How the 'New York Times' Sandbagged Bernie Sanders
Really interesting article about the NY Times story on their piece, Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors which was CHANGED TO Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories. He shows how they "corrected" the original version to take on a completely different slant from what was originally printed.
The New York Times ran a piece about Bernie Sanders Monday, a sort of left-handed compliment of a legislative profile. It was called "Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors."
I took notice of the piece by Jessica Steinhauer because I wrote essentially the same article nearly 11 years ago. Mine, called "Four Amendments and a Funeral," was quite a bit longer. Sanders back then was anxious that people know how Congress worked, and also how it didn't work, so he invited me to tag along for weeks to follow the process of a series of amendments he tried (and mostly succeeded) to pass in the House.
I came to the same conclusions that Steinhauer did initially: that Sanders was uniquely skilled at the amendment process and also had a unique ability to reach across the aisle to make deals.
"Sanders is the amendment king of the current House of Representative. Since the Republicans took over Congress in 1995, no other lawmaker… has passed more roll-call amendments (amendments that actually went to a vote on the floor) than Bernie Sanders. He accomplishes this on the one hand by being relentlessly active, and on the other by using his status as an Independent to form left-right coalitions."
Steinhauer the other day wrote very nearly the same thing. She described how Bernie managed to get a $1.5 billion youth jobs amendment tacked onto an immigration bill through "wheeling and dealing, shaming and cajoling."
The amendment, she wrote, was "classic Bernie Sanders," a man she described as having "spent a quarter-century in Congress working the side door, tacking on amendments to larger bills that scratch his particular policy itches, generally focused on working-class Americans, income inequality and the environment."
I took notice of the piece by Jessica Steinhauer because I wrote essentially the same article nearly 11 years ago. Mine, called "Four Amendments and a Funeral," was quite a bit longer. Sanders back then was anxious that people know how Congress worked, and also how it didn't work, so he invited me to tag along for weeks to follow the process of a series of amendments he tried (and mostly succeeded) to pass in the House.
I came to the same conclusions that Steinhauer did initially: that Sanders was uniquely skilled at the amendment process and also had a unique ability to reach across the aisle to make deals.
"Sanders is the amendment king of the current House of Representative. Since the Republicans took over Congress in 1995, no other lawmaker… has passed more roll-call amendments (amendments that actually went to a vote on the floor) than Bernie Sanders. He accomplishes this on the one hand by being relentlessly active, and on the other by using his status as an Independent to form left-right coalitions."
Steinhauer the other day wrote very nearly the same thing. She described how Bernie managed to get a $1.5 billion youth jobs amendment tacked onto an immigration bill through "wheeling and dealing, shaming and cajoling."
The amendment, she wrote, was "classic Bernie Sanders," a man she described as having "spent a quarter-century in Congress working the side door, tacking on amendments to larger bills that scratch his particular policy itches, generally focused on working-class Americans, income inequality and the environment."
SNIP
Given how tough the Times has been on Sanders this election season (in October, the paper even sank to writing an article about his failure to kiss enough babies), the Steinhauer piece was actually sort of flattering. Sanders himself linked to the article. Maybe the paper was coming around?
Not so fast! As noted first in this piece on Medium ("Proof That the New York Times Isn't Feeling the Bern"
, the paper swiftly made a series of significant corrections online. A new version of the piece came out later the same day, and in my mind, the corrections changed the overall message of the article.
First, as noted in the Medium piece, they changed the headline. It went from:
Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors
to:
Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories
Then they yanked a quote from Bernie's longtime policy adviser Warren Gunnels that read, "It has been a very successful strategy."
They then added the following two paragraphs:
"But in his presidential campaign Mr. Sanders is trying to scale up those kinds of proposals as a national agenda, and there is little to draw from his small-ball legislative approach to suggest that he could succeed.
"Mr. Sanders is suddenly promising not just a few stars here and there, but the moon and a good part of the sun, from free college tuition paid for with giant tax hikes to a huge increase in government health care, which has made even liberal Democrats skeptical."
This stuff could have been written by the Clinton campaign. It's stridently derisive, essentially saying there's no evidence Bernie's "small-ball" approach (I guess Republicans aren't the only ones not above testicular innuendo) could ever succeed on the big stage.
Not so fast! As noted first in this piece on Medium ("Proof That the New York Times Isn't Feeling the Bern"
, the paper swiftly made a series of significant corrections online. A new version of the piece came out later the same day, and in my mind, the corrections changed the overall message of the article.
First, as noted in the Medium piece, they changed the headline. It went from:
Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors
to:
Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories
Then they yanked a quote from Bernie's longtime policy adviser Warren Gunnels that read, "It has been a very successful strategy."
They then added the following two paragraphs:
"But in his presidential campaign Mr. Sanders is trying to scale up those kinds of proposals as a national agenda, and there is little to draw from his small-ball legislative approach to suggest that he could succeed.
"Mr. Sanders is suddenly promising not just a few stars here and there, but the moon and a good part of the sun, from free college tuition paid for with giant tax hikes to a huge increase in government health care, which has made even liberal Democrats skeptical."
This stuff could have been written by the Clinton campaign. It's stridently derisive, essentially saying there's no evidence Bernie's "small-ball" approach (I guess Republicans aren't the only ones not above testicular innuendo) could ever succeed on the big stage.
Read the whole fascinating article:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-new-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders-20160315?page=2
March 15, 2016
Bernie Sanders Rally in Phoenix later this afternoon - Lines Long - Great Photos!
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
March 15, 2016
SNIP
SNIP
SNIP
Read whole article: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/hillary_clintons_link_to_a_nasty_piece_of_work_in_honduras_20160315
About Marjorie Cohn:
Hillary Clinton’s Link to a Nasty Piece of Work in Honduras
By Marjorie Cohn
A critical difference between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton is their position on whether children who fled violence in Central American countries, particularly Honduras, two years ago should be allowed to stay in the United States or be returned.
SNIP
The violence in Honduras can be traced to a history of U.S. economic and political meddling, including Clinton’s support of the coup, according to American University professor Adrienne Pine, author of “Working Hard, Drinking Hard: On Violence and Survival in Honduras.”
Pine, who has worked for many years in Honduras, told Dennis Bernstein of KPFA radio in 2014 that the military forces that carried out the coup were trained at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (formerly called the U.S. Army School of the Americas) in Fort Benning, Ga. Although the coup was supported by the United States, it was opposed by the United Nations and the Organization of American States (OAS). The U.N. and the OAS labeled President Manuel Zelaya’s ouster a military coup.
“Hillary Clinton was probably the most important actor in supporting the coup [against the democratically elected Zelaya] in Honduras,” Pine noted. It took the United States two months to even admit that Honduras had suffered a coup, and it never did admit it was a military coup. That is, most likely, because the Foreign Assistance Act prohibits the U.S. from aiding a country “whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree.”
Although the U.S. government eventually cut nonhumanitarian aid to Honduras, the State Department under Clinton took pains to clarify that this was not an admission that a military coup had occurred.
“Hillary Clinton played a huge role in propping up the coup administration,” Pine said. “The State Department ensured the coup administration would remain in place through negotiations that they imposed, against the OAS’ wish, and through continuing to provide aid and continuing to recognize the coup administration.”
“And so if it weren’t for Hillary Clinton,” Pine added, “basically there wouldn’t be this refugee crisis from Honduras at the level that it is today. And Hondurans would be living a very different reality from the tragic one they are living right now.”
Pine, who has worked for many years in Honduras, told Dennis Bernstein of KPFA radio in 2014 that the military forces that carried out the coup were trained at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (formerly called the U.S. Army School of the Americas) in Fort Benning, Ga. Although the coup was supported by the United States, it was opposed by the United Nations and the Organization of American States (OAS). The U.N. and the OAS labeled President Manuel Zelaya’s ouster a military coup.
“Hillary Clinton was probably the most important actor in supporting the coup [against the democratically elected Zelaya] in Honduras,” Pine noted. It took the United States two months to even admit that Honduras had suffered a coup, and it never did admit it was a military coup. That is, most likely, because the Foreign Assistance Act prohibits the U.S. from aiding a country “whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree.”
Although the U.S. government eventually cut nonhumanitarian aid to Honduras, the State Department under Clinton took pains to clarify that this was not an admission that a military coup had occurred.
“Hillary Clinton played a huge role in propping up the coup administration,” Pine said. “The State Department ensured the coup administration would remain in place through negotiations that they imposed, against the OAS’ wish, and through continuing to provide aid and continuing to recognize the coup administration.”
“And so if it weren’t for Hillary Clinton,” Pine added, “basically there wouldn’t be this refugee crisis from Honduras at the level that it is today. And Hondurans would be living a very different reality from the tragic one they are living right now.”
SNIP
Less than a month after the coup, Hugo Llorens, former U.S. ambassador to Honduras, sent a cable to Clinton and other top U.S. officials. The subject line read: “Open and Shut: The Case of the Honduran Coup.” The cable said, “There is no doubt” that the coup was “illegal and unconstitutional.” Nevertheless, as noted above, Clinton’s objective was to “render the question of Zelaya moot.”
After the coup, there was a fraudulent election financed by the National Endowment for Democracy—notorious for meddling in Latin America—and the State Department. The election ushered in a repressive, militarized regime. Conditions deteriorated, leading to the exodus of thousands of Honduran children.
After the coup, there was a fraudulent election financed by the National Endowment for Democracy—notorious for meddling in Latin America—and the State Department. The election ushered in a repressive, militarized regime. Conditions deteriorated, leading to the exodus of thousands of Honduran children.
SNIP
On Thursday, more than 200 human rights, faith-based, indigenous rights, environmental, labor and nongovernmental groups sent an open letter to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, expressing “shock and deep sorrow regarding the murder of Honduran human rights and environmental defender Berta Cáceres ... winner of the prestigious 2015 Goldman Environmental Prize.” The groups urged Kerry to support an independent international investigation into her murder led by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. They also urged the State Department “to suspend all assistance and training to Honduran security forces, with the exception of investigatory and forensic assistance to the police, so long as the murders of Berta Cáceres and scores of other Honduran activists remain in impunity.”
Read whole article: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/hillary_clintons_link_to_a_nasty_piece_of_work_in_honduras_20160315
About Marjorie Cohn:
Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and former president of the National Lawyers Guild. Professor Cohn has authored “Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law”, has co-authored “Cameras in the Courtroom: Television and the Pursuit of Justice, and Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent” as well as edited and contributed to “The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration and Abuse, and Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues.” Her articles are archived at http://www.marjoriecohn.com.
Cohn lectures throughout the world regarding international human rights and U.S. foreign policy. She has also been a news consultant for CBS News and a legal analyst for Court TV, and has provided legal and political commentary on BBC, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, NPR, and Pacifica Radio.Her articles have appeared in numerous journals such as Fordham Law Review, Hastings Law Journal and Virginia Journal of International Law, as well as The National Law Journal, Christian Science Monitor and Chicago Tribune. Professor Cohn is a contributing editor to Jurist and National Lawyers Guild Review, and her frequent columns appear on Truthdig, Huffington Post, Truthout, CommonDreams, Counterpunch, OpedNews, ZNet, and GlobalResearch.
She has been a criminal defense attorney at the trial and appellate levels for many years, and was staff counsel to the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board. Professor Cohn is the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the Association of American Jurists and is deputy secretary general of the Bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers.
Professor Cohn as been recognized with multiple awards such as the San Diego County Bar Association’s 2005 Service to Legal Education Award, Esq, the Excellence in the Teaching of the Law by the San Diego Law Library Justice Foundation award, the 2007 Bernard E. Witkin award, and and was recognized as one of San Diego’s Top Attorneys in Academics for 2006, 2008 and 2009. She also received the 2008 Peace Scholar of the Year Award from the Peace and Justice Studies Association, the 2009 Amnesty International-San Diego Digna Ochoa Human Rights Defender Award, and the 2010 Alumni Achievement Award from the Santa Clara University School of Law.
Professor Cohn is part of the board of directors of the Vietnam Agent Orange Relief and Responsibility Campaign, the advisory board of Veterans for Peace, and is a civilian member of the board of GI Voice. She is also a member of the Advisory Board for the American Constitution Society – San Diego Chapter. Professor Cohn testified in 2008 about government torture policy before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and she has testified at military courts-martial about the illegality of the wars, the duty to obey lawful orders, and the duty to disobey unlawful orders. Cohen was legal observer in Iran on behalf of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers in 1978 and has participated in delegations to Cuba, China and Yugoslavia.
March 15, 2016
Doctor, Comedian & Clown - PATCH ADAMS - Endorses Bernie! Please For Sanity's Sake & Humanity's Sake
Video Link:
March 15, 2016
More: http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/gasland-director-urges-fracking-states-vote-sanders-super-tuesday#.VudSlBJIdro.twitter
'Gasland' Director Urges Fracking States to Vote Sanders on Super Tuesday
Josh Fox, the director of the celebrated 2010 documentary Gasland and more recently, How to Let Go of The World (And Love All the Things Climate Can't Change), which premiered at the 2016 Sundance Film Festival, has a message to voters about environmental dangers, Super Tuesday and Bernie Sanders.
What do these three have in common? Well, there are primaries in five states on Tuesday, March 15: Florida, Missouri, Illinois, North Carolina and Ohio. With the exception of Missouri, all of them are fracking states where there are significant anti-fracking movements on the ground.
If you want to stop fracking now, vote for Bernie, Fox said.
"What the clean power plant [that Hillary is in favor of] does is that it facilitates the transiton from coal to gas, not the transition from coal and gas to renewable energy," Fox told MSNBC's Chris Hayes following the Democratic debate in Miami. "Right now, in America we are facing 300 fracked gas power plants," the director added.
What do these three have in common? Well, there are primaries in five states on Tuesday, March 15: Florida, Missouri, Illinois, North Carolina and Ohio. With the exception of Missouri, all of them are fracking states where there are significant anti-fracking movements on the ground.
If you want to stop fracking now, vote for Bernie, Fox said.
"What the clean power plant [that Hillary is in favor of] does is that it facilitates the transiton from coal to gas, not the transition from coal and gas to renewable energy," Fox told MSNBC's Chris Hayes following the Democratic debate in Miami. "Right now, in America we are facing 300 fracked gas power plants," the director added.
More: http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/gasland-director-urges-fracking-states-vote-sanders-super-tuesday#.VudSlBJIdro.twitter
March 14, 2016
Charlotte NC Bernie Sanders Rally - LIVE NOW
March 14, 2016
SNIP
SNIP
Read whole statement here: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/bernie-sanders-a-higher-loyalty/article_ca6fa501-eead-5ed9-a9ef-8d6ec640834f.html
Very Interesting MO Endorsement: Robert H. Wendt - A higher loyalty
Robert H. Wendt, who owes a deep personal debt to both of the Clintons (having been pardoned by him in Jan. 2001) endorses Sanders.
I urge my fellow St. Louisans to vote for Bernie Sanders in this week’s primary. I do so in spite of being deeply indebted to Bill and Hillary Clinton.
SNIP
Because of this great personal debt and my deep belief in loyalty, it may seem both curious and disloyal that I urge my fellow citizens to get behind Bernie Sanders. I do so because of my deep belief that Sen. Sanders is leading a political revolution that has the only real chance of restoring democracy to America.
I was privileged to come of age during the civil rights movement. I am thankful that God allowed me to witness the struggle of my African-American fellows culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. What was accomplished was breathtaking. It came only with great sacrifice. But it proved that we could live up to what Lincoln so aptly described as “the better angels of our nature.”
I was privileged to come of age during the civil rights movement. I am thankful that God allowed me to witness the struggle of my African-American fellows culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. What was accomplished was breathtaking. It came only with great sacrifice. But it proved that we could live up to what Lincoln so aptly described as “the better angels of our nature.”
SNIP
Unless and until we remove the big money influence from our political system, we will continue in the direction of a two-class society — the haves and the have-nots. If that happens, America will come apart at the seams. The riots of the ’60s and ’70s will look like minor disturbances if the imbalances within our society remain and gain even more momentum.
The sad fact is that the Clintons are on the wrong side of this issue. They have become part of the Wall Street crowd. It is that group which nearly bankrupted our nation in 2008 with their greed. Hillary Clinton simply will not reform our broken economic system; she is part of it.
I implore my African-American friends to support Sen. Sanders because he, not Clinton, offers the only real chance to address the economic grievances of the black community.
The sad fact is that the Clintons are on the wrong side of this issue. They have become part of the Wall Street crowd. It is that group which nearly bankrupted our nation in 2008 with their greed. Hillary Clinton simply will not reform our broken economic system; she is part of it.
I implore my African-American friends to support Sen. Sanders because he, not Clinton, offers the only real chance to address the economic grievances of the black community.
Read whole statement here: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/bernie-sanders-a-higher-loyalty/article_ca6fa501-eead-5ed9-a9ef-8d6ec640834f.html
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Oct 28, 2015, 02:02 PMNumber of posts: 4,981
